omadacycline and Skin-Diseases--Bacterial

Omadacycline is approved for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infection (ABSSSI). The integration of newer agents into clinical use involves understanding the nuances of clinical decision-making. This review will provide an in-depth focus on omadacycline in clinical practice.. Literature review of omadacycline utilizing PubMed was performed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of omadacycline pharmacology, microbiology, registrational Phase 3 clinical trials, and post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, the immunomodulatory and other attributes of tetracycline class of antibiotics, of which omadacycline is a member, are reviewed, introducing the concept of antibiotic selection with attention to the bacterial pathogen and human host relationship.. Omadacycline builds upon the favorable attributes of tetracycline antibiotics and provides very reliable empiric coverage for both

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Community-Acquired Infections; Humans; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

Omadacycline, a first-in-class aminomethylcycline antibiotic, is approved in the USA as intravenous (IV) and/or oral therapy for treatment of adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) or acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Phase 1 and 3 studies indicate that omadacycline dose adjustments are not required for any patient group based on age, sex, race, weight, renal impairment, end-stage renal disease, or hepatic impairment. Equivalency of exposure has also been demonstrated for 300 mg oral and 100 mg IV doses. Using an oral loading-dose regimen results in drug exposures exceeding established efficacy targets against the most common CABP and ABSSSI pathogens by Day 2 of treatment, and omadacycline has demonstrated clinical efficacy and is well tolerated. The oral-only dosing regimens provide the potential for treatment of CABP and ABSSSI either within a hospital setting or in the community, which could support earlier hospital discharge and reduced treatment costs.

Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Humans; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

Given the growing prevalence of antibiotic resistance globally, there is an urgent need for new therapy options that are effective and well tolerated for treatment of common infections such as bacterial skin infections and pneumonia. Here, we summarize the findings of 3 phase 3 clinical trials of omadacycline, a novel tetracycline-derived aminomethylcycline, in patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI; OASIS-1 [NCT02378480] and OASIS-2 [NCT02877927]) or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP; OPTIC [NCT02531438]). The primary endpoint in all studies was early clinical response (early response) at 2 to 3 days (skin studies) or 3 to 5 days (pneumonia study) after the first dose. Other endpoints included post-treatment evaluation (late response) and safety evaluations. Early and late responses were similar for omadacycline (85% to 88%) and linezolid (83% to 86%) in the skin infection studies. Similarly in the pneumonia study, early and late responses were similar for omadacycline and moxifloxacin: 81% and 88% vs 83% and 85%, respectively. No differences were observed in subgroup analyses, and high rates of clinical response were seen for all treatments against common pathogens. The most frequent adverse event reported was nausea, which was mostly associated with the loading dose in the oral-only regimen in OASIS-2. Overall, omadacycline was well tolerated and showed high rates of clinical response in patients with skin infections and pneumonia, including in those with comorbidities.

Topics: Community-Acquired Infections; Humans; Pneumonia; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

Oral tetracyclines have been used in clinical practice for over 60 years. One of the most common indications for use of oral tetracyclines is for treatment of adult outpatients with skin and soft infections (SSTIs), including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The 2014 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) skin and soft tissue guideline strongly recommends sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, clindamycin, and tetracyclines as oral treatment options for patients with purulent SSTIs, especially when methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is of clinical concern. Despite the long-standing use of tetracyclines, practice patterns indicate that they are often considered after other guideline-concordant oral options for the treatment of patients with SSTIs. Clinicians may therefore be less familiar with the clinical data associated with use of commercially available tetracycline agents for treatment of patients with SSTI. This review summarizes the literature on the use of oral tetracyclines (ie, doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline) for the treatment of adult patients with SSTIs. As part of this review, we describe their common mechanisms of resistance, susceptibility profiles against common SSTI pathogens, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and comparative clinical data.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Ambulatory Care; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Doxycycline; Humans; Minocycline; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Clinical Trials as Topic; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Safety; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

To review the chemistry, pharmacology, microbiology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, tolerability, dosage, and administration of omadacycline, a new tetracycline antibiotic.. A literature search through PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted (2008 to October 2018) using the search terms omadacycline and PTK-0796. Abstracts presented at recent conferences, prescribing information and information from the FDA and the manufacturer's website were reviewed.. Preclinical data and published phase 1, 2, and 3 studies were evaluated.. Omadacycline displays in vitro activity against a wide range of bacteria. Clinical trials have shown that omadacycline is noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and noninferior to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). A loading dose of 200 mg intravenously (IV) once or 100 mg IV twice or 450 mg orally once is recommended followed by a maintenance dose of 100 mg IV or 300 mg orally once daily. No dosage adjustment is needed in patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Omadacycline is well tolerated, with nausea being a common adverse effect, but is associated with food and drug interactions. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Omadacycline is active against staphylococci, including methicillin-resistant strains, and streptococci, including tetracycline-resistant strains, as well as atypical bacteria. Omadacycline provides clinicians with an additional parenteral and oral option for the treatment of adults with ABSSSI and CABP.. Omadacycline is an alternative treatment option for ABSSSI and CABP.

Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Community-Acquired Infections; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines; Treatment Outcome

Paratek Pharmaceuticals are developing omadacycline (NUZYRA™), a first-in-class orally active aminomethylcycline antibacterial, as a treatment for various bacterial infections. The drug, which is available in intravenous and oral formulations, has a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity and was recently approved in the USA as a treatment for the treatment of community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in adults. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of omadacycline leading to this first global approval for the treatment of CABP and ABSSSI.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Approval; Humans; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines; United States

Omadacycline is a first-in-class aminomethylcycline antibiotic that circumvents common tetracycline resistance mechanisms. In vitro omadacycline has potent activity against Gram-positive aerobic bacteria including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, penicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. It is also active against common Gram-negative aerobes, some anaerobes and atypical bacteria including Legionella spp. and Chlamydia spp. Ongoing Phase III clinical trials with omadacycline are investigating once daily doses of 100 mg intravenously followed by once-daily doses of 300 mg orally for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. This paper provides an overview of the microbiology, nonclinical evaluations, clinical pharmacology and initial clinical experience with omadacycline.

Topics: Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Chlamydia; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Aerobic Bacteria; Gram-Positive Bacteria; Legionella; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Skin; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Tetracyclines; Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Pathogen resistance and safety concerns limit oral antibiotic options for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic, versus twice-daily oral linezolid for treatment of ABSSSI.. In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study, eligible adults with ABSSSI at 33 sites in the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive omadacycline (450 mg orally every 24 h over the first 48 h then 300 mg orally every 24 h) or linezolid (600 mg orally every 12 h) for 7-14 days. Randomisation was done via an interactive response system using a computer-generated schedule, and stratified by type of infection (wound infection, cellulitis or erysipelas, or major abscess) and receipt (yes or no) of allowed previous antibacterial treatment. Investigators, funders, and patients were masked to treatment assignments. Primary endpoints were early clinical response, 48-72 h after first dose, in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (randomised patients without solely Gram-negative ABSSSI pathogens at baseline), and investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, 7-14 days after the last dose, in the mITT population and clinically evaluable population (ie, mITT patients who had a qualifying infection as per study-entry criteria, received study drug, did not receive a confounding antibiotic, and had an assessment of outcome during the protocol-defined window). The safety population included randomised patients who received any amount of study drug. We set a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877927, and is complete.. Between Aug 11, 2016, and June 6, 2017, 861 participants were assessed for eligibility. 735 participants were randomly assigned, of whom 368 received omadacycline and 367 received linezolid. Omadacycline (315 [88%] of 360) was non-inferior to linezolid (297 [83%] of 360) for early clinical response (percentage-point difference 5·0, 95% CI -0·2 to 10·3) in the mITT population. For investigator-assessed clinical response at post-treatment evaluation, omadacycline was non-inferior to linezolid in the mITT (303 [84%] of 360 vs 291 [81%] of 360; percentage-point difference 3·3, 95% CI -2·2 to 9·0) and clinically evaluable (278 [98%] of 284 vs 279 [96%] of 292; 2·3, -0·5 to 5·8) populations. Mild to moderate nausea and vomiting were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in omadacycline (111 [30%] of 368 and 62 [17%] of 368, respectively) and linezolid (28 [8%] of 367 and 11 [3%] of 367, respectively) groups.. Once-daily oral omadacycline was non-inferior to twice-daily oral linezolid in adults with ABSSSI, and was safe and well tolerated. Oral-only omadacycline represents a new treatment option for ABSSSI, with potential for reduction in hospital admissions and cost savings.. Paratek Pharmaceuticals.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Linezolid; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections are associated with substantial morbidity and health care costs. Omadacycline, an aminomethylcycline antibiotic that can be administered once daily either orally or intravenously, is active against pathogens that commonly cause such infections, including antibiotic-resistant strains.. In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive omadacycline (100 mg given intravenously every 12 hours for two doses, then 100 mg given intravenously every 24 hours) or linezolid (600 mg given intravenously every 12 hours). A transition to oral omadacycline (300 mg every 24 hours) or oral linezolid (600 mg every 12 hours) was allowed after 3 days; the total treatment duration was 7 to 14 days. The primary end point was an early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours, defined as survival with a reduction in lesion size of at least 20% without rescue antibacterial therapy. A secondary end point was an investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation 7 to 14 days after the last dose, with clinical response defined as survival with resolution or improvement in signs or symptoms of infection to the extent that further antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. For both end points, the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points.. In the modified intention-to-treat population, omadacycline (316 patients) was noninferior to linezolid (311 patients) with respect to early clinical response (rate of response, 84.8% and 85.5%, respectively; difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to 4.9). Omadacycline also was noninferior to linezolid with respect to investigator-assessed clinical response at the post-treatment evaluation in the modified intention-to-treat population (rate of response, 86.1% and 83.6%, respectively; difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to 8.2) and in the clinical per-protocol population (96.3% and 93.5%, respectively; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 6.9). In both groups, the efficacy of the trial drug was similar for methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Adverse events were reported in 48.3% of the patients in the omadacycline group and in 45.7% of those in the linezolid group; the most frequent adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal (in 18.0% and 15.8% of the patients in the respective groups).. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections and had a similar safety profile. (Funded by Paratek Pharmaceuticals; OASIS-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02378480 .).

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Intention to Treat Analysis; Linezolid; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Middle Aged; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines; Young Adult

Within the last decade, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a frequent cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. New therapeutic options are being investigated for these infections.. We report an integrated analysis of 2 randomized, controlled studies involving omadacycline, a novel aminomethylcycline, and linezolid for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Omadacycline in Acute Skin and Skin Structure Infections Study 1 (OASIS-1) initiated patients on intravenous omadacycline or linezolid, with the option to transition to an oral formulation after day 3. OASIS-2 was an oral-only study of omadacycline versus linezolid.. In total, 691 patients received omadacycline and 689 patients received linezolid. Infection types included wound infection in 46.8% of patients, cellulitis/erysipelas in 30.5%, and major abscess in 22.7%. Pathogens were identified in 73.2% of patients. S. aureus was detected in 74.7% and MRSA in 32.4% of patients in whom a pathogen was identified. Omadacycline was noninferior to linezolid using the Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint of early clinical response (86.2% vs 83.9%; difference 2.3, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 6.2) and using the European Medicines Agency primary endpoint of investigator-assessed clinical response at the posttreatment evaluation. Clinical responses were similar across different infection types and infections caused by different pathogens. Treatment-emergent adverse events, mostly described as mild or moderate, were reported by 51.1% of patients receiving omadacycline and 41.2% of those receiving linezolid.. Omadacycline was effective and safe in ABSSSI.. NCT02378480 and NCT02877927.

Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Routes; Female; Humans; Linezolid; Male; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Middle Aged; Skin; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Soft Tissue Infections; Tetracyclines; Young Adult

Recent understanding of antimicrobial chemotherapy has expanded to appreciate significant impacts on the host-pathogen relationship by antibiotics. Omadacycline statistically outperformed linezolid in treating acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections in patients with diabetes mellitus in a recent post-hoc analysis of the OASIS-1 and OASIS-2 clinical trials. This difference may speak directly or indirectly to neutrophil dysfunction in diabetes. Neutrophil dysfunction increases the likelihood of Gram-negative bacterial infection, whereby diabetics may benefit from the broader spectrum of omadacycline compared with linezolid. Indirectly, oxazolidinones like linezolid have been shown to be dependent on neutrophil function, potentially compromising the potency of this drug class in diabetics. Finally, tetracyclines like omadacycline have collateral anti-inflammatory properties that have not been seen in other antibiotic drug classes. These differences may impact clinical outcomes in the treatment of infections that are not predicted by their antimicrobial activities alone, as measured in standard susceptibility testing assays.

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Linezolid; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Soft Tissue Infections; Tetracyclines

Many antibiotics require dosage adjustments in patients with renal impairment. In Phase III studies, omadacycline was non-inferior to moxifloxacin and linezolid in adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI), respectively. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety measures from three omadacycline studies by patient renal function.. Patients were stratified as having normal renal function (creatinine clearance >89 mL/min), mild renal impairment (creatinine clearance 60-89 mL/min) or moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min); creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min (severe renal impairment) was an exclusion criterion. Efficacy endpoints were clinical success at the early clinical response (ECR) and post-treatment evaluation (PTE) time-points. Safety was evaluated as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory measures.. This subgroup analysis included 773 patients with CABP and 1339 patients with ABSSSI in intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations, respectively. Clinical success rates were high at ECR and PTE across the studies (CABP 75-90%; ABSSSI 74-95%), and broadly similar between treatments, irrespective of renal function. Rates of TEAEs in patients with ABSSSI ranged from 33% to 52%, and were similar across renal function groups. In patients with CABP, higher rates were observed in patients with moderate renal impairment (56-61%) compared with patients with normal renal function or mild renal impairment (35-49%). The most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting.. Clinical success was similar across renal function groups, indicating no notable difference in the efficacy of omadacycline in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Omadacycline and comparators displayed similar safety profiles. CLINICALTRIALS.. OPTIC (NCT02531438); OASIS-1 (NCT02378480); OASIS-2 (NCT02877927).

Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Renal Insufficiency; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

The objectives of this post-hoc analysis were to examine the safety and efficacy of omadacycline by BMI categories and diabetes history in adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) from two pivotal Phase III studies.. OASIS-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02378480): patients were randomized 1:1 to IV omadacycline or linezolid for 7-14 days, with optional transition to oral medication. OASIS-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02877927): patients received once-daily oral omadacycline or twice-daily oral linezolid for 7-14 days. Early clinical response (ECR) was defined as ≥20% reduction in lesion size 48-72 h after the first dose. Clinical success at post-treatment evaluation (PTE; 7-14 days after the last dose) was defined as symptom resolution such that antibacterial therapy was unnecessary. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events and laboratory measures. Between-treatment comparisons were made with regard to WHO BMI categories and diabetes history.. Patients were evenly distributed among healthy weight, overweight and obese groups. Clinical success for omadacycline-treated patients at ECR and PTE was similar across BMI categories. Outcomes by diabetes status were similar in omadacycline- and linezolid-treated patients: at ECR, clinical success rates were lower for those with diabetes; at PTE, clinical success was similar between treatment groups regardless of diabetes history. The safety of omadacycline and linezolid was largely similar across BMI groups and by diabetes history.. Omadacycline efficacy in patients with higher BMI and in patients with diabetes was consistent with results from two pivotal Phase III ABSSSI trials. Fixed-dose omadacycline is an appropriate treatment for ABSSSI in adults regardless of BMI.

Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Body Mass Index; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Linezolid; Pyrroles; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines; Vinyl Compounds

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Humans; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines

Omadacycline is a semisynthetic tetracycline antibiotic. Phase III clinical trial results have shown that omadacycline has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Similar to most tetracyclines, transient nausea and vomiting and low-magnitude increases in liver aminotransferases were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in phase III studies but were not treatment limiting. Package insert warnings and precautions for omadacycline include tooth discoloration; enamel hypoplasia; inhibition of bone growth following use in late pregnancy, infancy, or childhood up to 8 years of age; an imbalance in mortality (2%, compared with 1% in moxifloxacin-treated patients) was observed in the phase III study in patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Omadacycline has no effect on the QT interval, and its affinity for muscarinic M2 receptors resulted in transient heart rate increases following dosing.

Topics: Age Factors; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Male; Skin Diseases, Bacterial; Tetracyclines